tv [untitled] September 19, 2014 9:00pm-9:31pm PDT
react to this situation. i have been a loyal customer of at & t and used for several yearsen my house and we have same services. we never have any problem using this at home with at & t. i strongly object to this approval of conditional use of the tower and also object to be able to kind of limit it. normal life in this neighborhood. especially i'm a close neighbor of this up and coming proposed tower. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> commissioners, i just want to speak in opposition to the antenna as well. it's not my neighborhood, but i hope you all understand that if
you read the small print that comes with your phone, it's pretty scary. these things are not safe and neither are the antennas. it's often said, there is no proof that they are dangerous. but the question you should be asking is if there is proof that they are safe and there isn't. the small print often says that warns you about keeping these phones away from specific parts of your body. i guess the parts you consider are important. so there is too many in the city and i would support these people and oppose this. i'm an at & t customer. thanks. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner johnson? >> thank you very much. yeah. i actually support this project, i think that the site selection
analysis was very thorough in its selection. i know there was one public commenter there was a hospital five blocks away but unfortunate that the not in the coverage gap. don't interrupt please. that is not in the coverage area that at & t is trying to cover. i will just say a can you live of thing because i kind of feel like i started but i didn't but i feel i started a little bit of the water fall of taking these items off the consent calendar. i want to make note of a couple things because i heard it a lot in public comment. the first is people coming and saying i have 5r. there is a at n at & t report that we received which is public information and part of the general packet that does an excellent job of explaining what a coverage gap means and not having 5 bars is only one symptom of a coverage gap problem. others include things that you don't see such as how the signals
are handled amongst the switching equipment that is already available and how that can create traffic jambs that can slow message getting through, stop them entirely. if you ever missed a text or anything like that. i won't go into too many details because the report is available. i heard that and i wanted to make a no it that not having 5 bars is not the only issue of coverage gap issues. again, i will be brief on this, i understand people are concerned about it, but you know, there is -- i think that until we come up with a scenario where maybe there is this preliminary -- blimp that flies around that that's the way we'll get coverage.
there is relatively safety on our emissions and i feel comfortable supporting the guidelines of the fcc and not trying to use the planning department to use guidelines for that area. thank you so much. >> thank you, commissioner richards. >> i have a question of staff and commissioner antonini reminded us what we have to consider when granting this conditional use. can you let us know that. >> well the department of conditional use authorization what is considered necessary desirable and compatible. speaking of necessity based on the guidelines proved that at the need this location because there is no other site available and there is a capacity gap, sometimes it's both, sometimes it's a capacity gap, with respect to compatible and desirable we are looking at primarily design. does it for instance violate
any principals of interiors or properties and a design with the neighborhood in terms of massing and scale. with this project we didn't just look at one mass of para pit around the building but a combination. >> thank you. a question for mr. hammond, is he here? >> i at the last hearing was trying in layman's terms trying to understand what a coverage gap is to the user. can you explain what a coverage gap an appears if i'm out of the map area. this would really benefit the public if we can hear what that's like? >> certainly, a coverage gap can manifest itself in a variety of ways,
dropped calls or slowed speeds. >> in terms of slowdown speeds, if i were in the hot area where we got great coverage. i have an lte symbol, i go down and my type of download speed? >> that's essentially correct. the reason for adding sites and upgrading sites is to improve the vast technology. >> can you talk about the five do the phenomenon where people say i have five dots and i'm fine. >> they maybe getting the signal strength which is the five bars talked about, but the capacity site 19 that condition may not take another call but provide the download speed. it's not available. >> i'm in a middle of a million people
standing there, i have five dots and i can't make a call. >> that's the exact product. >> rule time emissions monitoring, there is a 10 day and two year look back. is there such a time to limit a central gathering spot for information and you can figure that out right away rather than after the fact? >> the wireless telecommunications guidelines were designed to provide immediate monitoring after a site is built and periodic assessment moving forward should there be a change. anytime the carrier wants to make a change has to start process again with another windows >> something from going to acceptable emissions to added wattage is not possible? >> it's not possible without adding additional capacity. >> we shouldn't be afraid of that. >> it's what the pattern has
shown over the years is that if the facility has the same levels moving forward. >> it's backed up by hard data? >> yes. >> i have another question for teddy. can you tell us about your outreach process to the neighborhood? >> sure. it various from different locations to location based on the site, based on the opposition. for example what we are required to do is have one community meeting where we go where we present the process, how we selected the site, what goes into kind of the capacity, the coverage issue. we will do a number of follow up things. wle offer to people we did not have, if i recall we didn't have a large amount of people come out to this site. if someone is really opposed to rf emissionsed and they live really close, we will offer up help
from edison have their own house measured with a monitor we can do that and at & t has offered to pay for that. that's typically what we do during a community meeting. if also a lot of people, only -- omar will come out. just depending on next week we'll have a meeting because people are concerned about the proposed location. we'll go to them and have a meeting. it kind of various. >> so at the contacts and information readily available for people who want to have their homes measured in the fear of being radiated? >> yeah. it is at the community meeting, omar is aware of it and the department of public health has it's own
equipment if they were to reach out, but of course, we would be happy to take on that. >> i urge all the speakers who are concerned by this to utilize that service. >> thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: i think it would not be a bad idea sometime in the future to have an informational session on wireless communication and it will be noted as an agenda item and hopefully people will come or watch it on television to understand because we tend to do these things over and over again and in particular in regards to rf emissions and as i mentioned before we bound by federal standards. if the emissions are below recommended, we could not
refuse them. if someone says we get antennas and tested afterwards, is it possible to be whereon? -- wrong? the margin is so great on all of these that i have seen, it's a very very small percentage when expected and i expect it's usually substantiated to be very close what the estimate was or certainly never to a level where it would be deemed to be harmful. i think that that's the answer to that question and certainly if anybody feels that's not correct they can be tested to see it's in fact not harmful. that's item no. 1 and item 2, the one other area where we could possibly have some discretion i think staff did a great job on the para pit
and i like the structure better with the facade on there that it did before. it's an area characterized by low rise buildings so there aren't very many good sites. i'm going to move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner? >> before the at & t and department would go out and measure. does that carry on after the antenna is installed? >> when the sight is being proposed edison will go there to see what other places causing this ambient baseline. as part of the preparation to report, they are estimating worst case standard. they are assuming that every channel is operating at max capacity. generally that isn't a standard condition unlessu a parade
for bad king in up to -- kid in up to operating at capacity. when they have gone with a meter they found it was below than what was predicted. >> they can make that question six 6 months after? >> correct. >> i have seen someone correct roof tops and contacts 311 and we've arranged the testing and the carriers never balked at that test. cl eric clerk there is a motion to approve, hillis, johnson, moore, richard, fong, wu. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. places you on item 6 . item 6: 2014.1240t
a. starr; 4155 558-63622 amendments to the planning code's definition of residential unit and residential conversion requirements [board file no. 140775] - ordinance amending the planning code to amend the definition of residential unit and clarify the requirements for a residential conversion of a residential hotel unit regulated under administrative code, chapter 41; making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. preliminary recommendation: adopt a recommendation for approval sf 61234 >> good afternoon commissioners. i would like to recognize jeremy polak from the office responding to this ordinance. the ordinance before you would amend a planning code to make sure hotels maintain processes. there is an amendment of a recent ordinance that mistakenly allowed this at hotels. this would undo that change that was unintentional. in 2013. you remember supervisor avalos brought an ordinance before you that entitled demolition and conversion. this was intended to ensure the planning code was articulating and regretting the policies in the general plan and the utmost care
given to demos and conversions. as part of that ordinance there was a change made where that would add, where residential unit in the residential hotel was removed from the definition of residential unit. a residential hotel in and of itself wasn't specified that a unit was considered to be a residential use. this change was made at the time because it was in tended to ensure that it would not have to go through the administrative process as well as the planning code process outlined in 317. that would be fine because the administrative processes would be stronger and more protective.
it seemed there would be no harm in making this change. however the unintended consequences this change removed the provision of the residential hotel to student housing. to address this issue, the ordinance before you would return the residential units in a hotel into the decision of this residential use and the ordinance would also add language to avoid the redundant processes that might be associated with 317 and chapter 41. this would ensure that chapter 41 in the administrative code requirements would guide the administration of these residential hotels. that is a short summary. i know this is a complicated information and i hope to provide more clarity and if staff has any questions, i'm sure there are some. >vice-president cindy wu:
thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: yes. i'm voting against this as the other legislation for the reason that it is a complete prohibition. my reason with housing units in general that were not allowed to be converted to student housing. i think the conditional use is a better method because there could be an instance where for example many of the sr units are overcrowded, they are unsafe and seismically unsound and not very good safe housing units. we've seen many burn down over the years with loss of life. without being proactive is somewhat derelict upon the city and to reduce to student housing and return
the sponsor provided the same number of vshs sro units and have safe housing and would allow them to finance this. this legislation would not allow that to happen because there is a prohibition. i'm pointing that out where a conditional use process would be to allow something like that. i'm generally against total bans unless it is completely clear that you never want it to happen. i brought one instance where you want it to occur. let's to convert to student housing but it is always a possibility. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i ask for a specific item to be taken out of consent because this is basically correcting legislation at a level where there was indeed a loophole and lack of definition and i move that we
approve because we originally unanimously perhaps with the abstention of commissioner antonini. move to approve. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner johnson? >> i think the conditional use process works unless something is agreed that you don't want it. however i would, i'm going to approve this because i think the intent of the board of supervisors was to have that prohibition and i want to maintain the integrity of them to have that discussion and again, this is not an approval that we are making at the planning commission level and would make at the board of supervisors and hopefully, commissioner antonini will resonate with the board of supervisors and the approval process works for the most part. thank you very much. city clerk: commissioners, there is a motion and second to adopt a
recommendation for approval. on that motion, commissioner antonini, no, hillis, yes, johnson, moore, richards, fong. wu. that motion passes 6-1 with commissioner antonini voting against. commissioners that will place you on item 11 under the regular calendar. item 11: 2014.1193t d. sanchez; 4155 575-90822 arcades in the haight street ncd [board file 140804] - ordinance amending the planning code to permit arcades in the haight street neighborhood commercial district and update references in the planning code to arcade regulations in the police code, affirm the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, and make planning code section 302 findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and priority policies of planning code section 101.1. item 11: 2014.1193t d. sanchez; 4155 575-90822 arcades in the haight street ncd [board file 140804] - ordinance amending the planning code to permit arcades in the haight street neighborhood commercial district and update references in the planning code to arcade regulations in the police code, affirm the planning
department's determination under the california environmental quality act, and make planning code section 302 findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and priority policies of planning code section 101.1. item 11: 2014.1193t d. sanchez; 4155 575-90822 arcades in the haight street ncd [board file 140804] - ordinance amending the planning code to permit arcades in the haight street neighborhood commercial district and update references in the planning code to arcade regulations in the police code, affirm the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, and make planning code section 302 findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and priority policies of planning code section 101.1. >> 1234 good afternoon commissioners. this is for an arcade on the second story. reference to the police code of definition of amusement code for games and arcades. the planning code definition also references police code sections that will change. staff is recommending approval for this for the following reasons. the staff recommendation is permitting game arcades on the first and second story to add a second provision to the zoning table that clarifies that in the zoning district that portion of other entertainment use is comprising of m mechanical amusement devices to updates reference to the police code session found. the recommendation is based on the following the proposed ordinance modernize arcades based on their current use and potential or
perceived uses, rationalize that the planning department on regulations and proposing mechanical devices where a less intent use is more controlled than a higher intensity use. given a compassionate definition it's necessary to up district attorney it the planning code for the sake of the accuracy. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. i see a member of supervisor breed 's office. >> thank you, from supervisors breed, sponsor of this legislation. welcome commissioner johnson and richards. this is the first time i have the opportunity to present to you, so congratulations. just to give a brief background on arcades and pinball machines in san francisco. pinball was sometimes a gambling
enterprise and there were concerns back then about the impact it had on the city and crime and various derelict activities and that continues in the haight area that were attracting the hell's angels and then in 1982 work-cited -- with the rise of arcade games that they were taking over the city, turning the fowl of the youth and down turn modern civilization. the board of supervisors passed expense -- extensive regulation, regretting where and how and when arcade games can take place in san francisco. that is what supervisor breed has now amended and
updated. by way of example to give you a sense of what that police code did. it prohibited arcade games in gas stations for some reason, it prohibits arcades within 1500 feet of another arcade with the fear they were running rampid and a variety of control about locations, number of games you can have based on your square footage. we have now amended all of that and that legislation passed at the board of supervisors a few weeks ago and the administration and the staff worked on this, the executive director. the small business commission endorsed it unanimously, the police worked with us very closely and supported the legislation. and from sf beautiful spoke on this behalf and the commission, i spoke with christian evans today
that supported this legislation and also the legislation before you today. that legislation which now has passed allows arcades in the city provided they meet the terms of the entertainment commission's permitting process and gambling devices. however we are left with this legacy provision in the planning code that prohibits in haight and that is a problem. it has more than 11 arcade games in front. by the name of frugal watch. we received somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 letters in support in addition a petition signed by a few hundred people. this is a business where i witch wish i was half as popular as they
are. they are a great contribution and they actually host a pinball league throughout the neighborhood and it's a great source of community for the neighborhood of haight. she would ask that you approve this today that will simply allow the arcade as was made precedent already passed by the board. sanchez did a great job and i thank him for the no. 2 with respect to the devices, a nuance that we didn't catch. i appreciate he brought that up. essentially if the legislation were to pass the way it is, a business of over 11 games would be allowed by right, but under 11 games would require a c u. he wanted to clarify anything under 11 games would need approval.
if you look at his language on page four of the report, he suggested with the haight street and other entertainment use comprised of mechanical devices would be an arcade used. i think it might be worth adding there for purpose of planning because arcade has a definition under the police code. i would be concerned we don't want to create confusion that that new business is treated as an arcade under the police code. that maybe moot but i want to bring it up for your consideration. with that, i'm happy to answer questions. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, we are open for public comment first and then commissioners may ask questions. i have two speaker cards.
>> hello, thank you for considering this matter granted as a small issue. i'm currently at frugal watch and i have had an opportunity to view the way the family and community gathers around it and this is something we absolutely want to see in our neighborhood. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. my name is eric wagon center. thank you for allowing me to speak today. i'm not affiliated with frugal watch but a customer. we are not affiliated with the hell's angels. i wanted to state how
important frugal watch has been to the pinball community in the bay area. we have three locations in the bay area that have pinball machines, bars, movie theatres. but frugal watch is the most popular because it is the only lotion of -- location of any size in the city of san francisco. there is six in the bay area but one in san francisco area. it has been a popular area particularly in san francisco, frugal watch is at the epicenter of that. the management and staff of frugal watch has been extremely welcoming to the pinball community. they have made a great space for us and very appreciative of their work
and they also remind us to be very respectable to the neighborhood and that we clean up after ourselves and those of us who help run the league reinforce that with the people. we also would like to say that the free gold watch has brought many people into bay area. for more popular tournaments, people come from sacramento, san jose, we tend to get a lot of out of towners from the east coast where it's made a name for itself in the pinball community. we have some people from boston, some from colorado who came last night and some europeans that came in. it's bringing a lot to the community. it's the only place we have for a place of